PSI - Issue 39

Hithendra Karakampalle et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 39 (2022) 711–721 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000

720 10

Fig. 19. σ x for 2a@L2=7mm and 2a@ L1 and L3= 0, 7, 9, 11 mm

Considering the maximum normal stress as the parameter, Figure 20 shows the percentage difference of the maximum normal stress (σ x ) at L2, in presence and absence of cracks at L1 and L3, at different interference levels and different crack lengths at L2, considering the maximum normal stress. It can be seen that the plots are almost identical, which implies that the maximum normal stress at L2 is governed more by the size of neighboring cracks rather than the size of crack at L2 itself. With increase in the length of neighbouring crack, in all cases, there is an increase in the normal stress in the plate at L2. The percentage increase is close to 35% in case of 0% interference level and neighboring crack size of 11 mm. a b

c

Fig. 20. Percentage difference in max. σx with (a) 2a@ L2= 7 mm; (b) 2a@ L2= 9 mm; (c) 2a@ L2= 11 mm; and 2a@L2, L3= 7,9,11 mm, when compared with the absence of cracks at L2 and L3 4. Conclusions A numerical study to assess the stress intensity factor for cracks emanating from a 3-2-1 type Lozenge pattern of joints has been conducted on a half symmetric strap plate for a combination of crack lengths and interferences.